According to multiple reports, the NHL has made a new offer to the players’ association during their meeting today. One portion the proposal is the offer of a 50/50 split of hockey-related revenue with the players.

The NHL put a new offer on the bargaining table for the NHL Players' Association on Tuesday morning, which includes a 50/50 split of hockey-related revenue and contingent on an 82-game season beginning Nov. 2.

So, under the NHL offer, we'd see a slightly more compact schedule, but the league would still get in a full 82 games, which is good news for everyone involved. The part that will likely be hard to swallow is the NHL's demand that players drop to 50 percent immediately, rather shifting gradually to that figure over a year or two.

The really interesting component of the deal is that it appears the league would pay players for a full season, if an 82-game schedule is possible once the deal is agreed to. From Elliotte Friedman:

I'd expect the key thing for players to discuss is what sounds like an NHL offer to "return" whatever is lost on their salaries this season.

Meanwhile, Donald Fehr tells the media that the proposed CBA would be at least a six year deal, and that the players will discuss the new offer at a 5 PM conference call. For now, he seems to be keeping his comments short, but he did say that the NHLPA would get back to the owners on this new offer soon - by Tuesday or Wednesday.

My initial reaction is that this obviously won't be the final offer that gets things settled, but this might be the offer that kickstarts earnest negotiations on key financial issues. If the players are willing to accept 50 percent of hockey-related revenue, or something in the ball park, this should trigger a counter-proposal from them, with my guess being that they target both the implementation period (in other words: asking for a gradual reduction to 50/50 rather than a sharp step down) and the 50 percent total.

These negotiations have been frustrating for everyone, but this is a perfect example of why constant talks are preferable to total silence - eventually, one side or the other will say something that catches the attention of their counterparts. Hockey fans longing for a 2012-13 season just need to hope that this is the offer that finally catches the players' interest.

If it doesn't, that's probably the last hope for a full 82-game campaign. And if the league starts cutting games permanently, that's exactly the sort of thing that could lead to worse offers the rest of the way.

Jonathan Willis is a freelance writer.
He currently works for Oilers Nation, Sportsnet, the Edmonton Journal and Bleacher Report.
He's co-written three books and worked for myriad websites, including Grantland, ESPN, The Score, and Hockey Prospectus. He was previously the founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue.

Yeah I agree with that as well but the original comment sounded as though all 2 way contracts would count to the cap as well. Someone like paajarvi or hartihymen would count to the NHL cap even though they play in the AHL

Hmmm, the players were at 57 in the last CBA and the owners lowball at 43, then come back to 50 with this offer. Halfway....Easy Peasy, right?

Gotta do something about contract length from the owners' perspective as well, as well as free agency eligibility. Maybe these requirements can be blunted somewhat with an acceptance of 50% of revenues by the players.

Both sides want to do away with the practise of burying NHL salaries in the AHL.

The players hate it because someone like Redden could still be a productive NHL player.

And the owners, generally, hate it because it gives rich teams an advantage not predicted in the CBA.

But with the advent of the jillion year contract along-side guaranteed contracts it was the only way teams could fix mistakes without it affecting their Cap situation.

My alternative would be an option to buy out a player at full price of contract with no Cap hit. But it's a silly thing for the players to complain about, IMO. Guys like Redden are making 100% of their salary instead of being bought out for pennies on the dollar.

Be happy the contract is guaranteed and take the money. (Just an Opinion)

After spending decades in sales and negotiating, I can tell you "lowballing" someone is about the worst negotiating tactic you can employ.

If you had your house on the market and were asking $225,000 when the established market value was around $200,000 and I came in with an offer of $125,000, you would walk away shaking your head.

That's what happened here.

correction.....

The worst tactic is not advertising your asking price. Without an asking price, a consumer would be utterly stupid to offer fair market value, unless you are in to making people who spend decades in sales and negotiating very, very rich. You speak from a vendor point of view sir, and the league and the cans are the consumers.

I hate to agree with DSF but the initial 'offer' by the owners was a sick joke, which poisoned the negotiations from the beginning. Obviously you are going to understate your ultimate position, but 43% of HRR? 5 year entry level contracts when the average career is five years? An additional five years as an RFA with no arbitration? 10 years until FA? Rollbacks on the contracts owners signed supposedly in good faith?

The NHLPA passive aggressive response was really the only choice they had. Now THIS appears to be a legitimate proposal. Apparently to get straight to 50% much of the contract money will be deferred, so we will have to see how that works. Deferred for how long? What about interest? Also we will need details on how the AHL salaries will included, as that could be a deal breaker if it isn't just a way or preventing circumventing the cap as with Redden.

The NHLPA must put the offer under a microscope, confer with the players and return with a counteroffer. If there are no hidden bombs in the NHL offer than I suspect they can reach an agreement in time to start on Nov. 2. Still too early to say I guess but if the NHL had opened at 47% or 48% and not included the outrageous demands on player freedom we would be talking about the Oilers' start to the season instead of wondering whether there will be one.

I hate to agree with DSF but the initial 'offer' by the owners was a sick joke, which poisoned the negotiations from the beginning. Obviously you are going to understate your ultimate position, but 43% of HRR? 5 year entry level contracts when the average career is five years? An additional five years as an RFA with no arbitration? 10 years until FA? Rollbacks on the contracts owners signed supposedly in good faith?

The NHLPA passive aggressive response was really the only choice they had. Now THIS appears to be a legitimate proposal. Apparently to get straight to 50% much of the contract money will be deferred, so we will have to see how that works. Deferred for how long? What about interest? Also we will need details on how the AHL salaries will included, as that could be a deal breaker if it isn't just a way or preventing circumventing the cap as with Redden.

The NHLPA must put the offer under a microscope, confer with the players and return with a counteroffer. If there are no hidden bombs in the NHL offer than I suspect they can reach an agreement in time to start on Nov. 2. Still too early to say I guess but if the NHL had opened at 47% or 48% and not included the outrageous demands on player freedom we would be talking about the Oilers' start to the season instead of wondering whether there will be one.

But with the advent of the jillion year contract along-side guaranteed contracts it was the only way teams could fix mistakes without it affecting their Cap situation.

My alternative would be an option to buy out a player at full price of contract with no Cap hit. But it's a silly thing for the players to complain about, IMO. Guys like Redden are making 100% of their salary instead of being bought out for pennies on the dollar.

Be happy the contract is guaranteed and take the money. (Just an Opinion)

I don't disagree but the GM who made the mistake should have to wear it.

I agree. This was an opener, but the deal is far from done. I don't see howanybody can see that this is a good deal if you put yourself in the players shoes.
If you take the scales of economy out of the equation, and apply these numbers to your own personal situation, would you take the deal? I kow that I wouldn't, especially after I give an effective 25% of my salary to meet the employers current agreement.